Protea Coin Group v SATAWU obo Mabasa and Others (JR373/2011) [2015] ZALCJHB 251 (7 August 2015)

Protea Coin Group v SATAWU obo Mabasa and Others (JR373/2011) [2015] ZALCJHB 251 (7 August 2015)

The court held that the date of dismissal was 3 February 2009, when the applicant unilaterally terminated the employee's contract. The referral to the CCMA was made outside the statutory 30 day period and was not accompanied by an application for condonation. As a result, the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The review was correctly upheld and the application to dismiss was correctly dismissed. The court found no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 251
Parties
Applicant: Protea Coin Group; Respondent: SATAWU obo Simon Mabasa; Respondent: Thulani Akin N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2015
Case Number
JR373/2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Review
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Ccma, Late Referral, Condonation, Date of Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Ccma Late Referral Condonation Date of Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Protea Coin Group

Applicant

SATAWU obo Simon Mabasa

Respondent

Thulani Akin N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the referral of the dismissal dispute to the CCMA was made within the statutory 30 day period.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an application for condonation deprived the CCMA of jurisdiction.
  3. 3 Whether the date of dismissal was correctly determined by the court a quo.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the date of dismissal was 3 February 2009, when the applicant unilaterally terminated the employee's contract. The referral to the CCMA was made outside the statutory 30 day period and was not accompanied by an application for condonation. As a result, the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The review was correctly upheld and the application to dismiss was correctly dismissed. The court found no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.